Allahabad High Court

AAKASH PRADHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of specific identification of the applicant as a participant in the firing and given that the case involved no injury, anticipatory bail was warranted.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Aakash Pradhan under Section 482 of the CrPC in connection with a FIR alleging firing, where the applicant feared arrest. The applicant's counsel argued that the video evidence only implicated co‑accused Shekhar and Keshav, and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents or a specific role in the incident. The informant and the State contended that the applicant was present at the scene and was identified from CCTV footage. The court examined the diary notes and found that the firing was attributed solely to the co‑accused and that the applicant was not independently identified, noting that the case involved no injury. Relying on these facts, the court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, emphasizing that the order was limited to the bail application and not an opinion on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant given the lack of specific evidence linking him to the alleged firing.
Whether the applicant can be positively identified from CCTV footage as a participant in the offence.
Whether the nature of the alleged offence (no injury) warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 109, 115(2), 3(5), 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
CCTV evidence
no injury offence
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9137 of 2026

Aakash Pradhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brij Lal Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma, Ram Babu
Sharma, G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant, Learned A.G.A. for the State
and Sri Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel or the informant as
well as perused the record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 185 of 2026, under Section 115(2), 109,
351(3), 352, 3(5) of BNS, Police Station- Jewar, District Gautam Buddh
Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant
apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned case.

4. The Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that this is a case
involving no injury. Even otherwise, the video evidence relied upon by
the informant and the police shows only the role of firing being attributed
to the co-accused, Shekhar and Keshav. No specific role has been
assigned to the applicant. Applicant has no criminal antecedents.

5. The Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail and has contended that the applicant was present on
the spot and was duly identified by the informant from the CCTV footage.

6. Learned A.G.A. has adopted the submissions made by learned counsel
for the informant, but has not pointed out any criminal antecedents of
NABAIL No. 9137 of 2026
2

applicant.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.

8. Prima facie, from the noting in the case diary with respect to the CCTV
footage, it appears that the role of firing has specifically been attributed to
the co-accused, Shekhar and Keshav. The applicant has not been
identified by any independent person, supposedly due to the fact that the
applicant is a resident of a different village. No specific role has been
assigned to the applicant. This is a case involving no injury and the co-
accused, Shani Jadoon @ Shani, has been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court in NABAIL No. 7745 of 2026.

9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail.

10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.

11. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Aakash Pradhan, he shall
be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on
furnishing a personal bond and surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
concerned with the following conditions:-

i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;

ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer;

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;
NABAIL No. 9137 of 2026
3

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

13. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 28, 2026
Junaid

Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…